Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

ChristianCooper writes "BBC News reports today that making digital copies of "music, films and other copyrighted material for personal use" will be permitted under new legislation to be proposed by the UK Government. It would still not be permitted to pass these personal copies to friends or family, etc.

Since the Copyright, Designs and Patents act of 1988, the restriction on copying literary, musical, dramatic or artistic works was extended to "storing the work in any medium by electronic means" — this had the side effect of including activities such as ripping CDs onto portable music players, or transferring files between e-readers."Link to Original Source

"Similarly, I recall the Sun running its usual "Find the paedos, spill their blood" stuff in the same issue where they ran a "Phwoar, Charlotte Church wins rear of the rear" wankpiece, using a photo taken when she was 15."

It was the Daily Star - there was a piece decrying the depravity of Chris Morris's Brass Eye paedophile special, and in the next column had the pic of Miss Church (15) with the heading of "She's a big girl now... chest swell!"

From the act (which is very long and detailed - and doesn't make any reference to "format shifting"):

"16 The acts restricted by copyright in a work.(1) The owner of the copyright in a work has, in accordance with the following provisions of this Chapter, the exclusive right to do the following acts in the United Kingdom—(a) to copy the work (see section 17);[...]

17 Infringement of copyright by copying.(1) The copying of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in every description of copyright work; and references in this Part to copying and copies shall be construed as follows.(2) Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form.This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means.

[...]

(6) Copying in relation to any description of work includes the making of copies which are transient or are incidental to some other use of the work"

And, sadly, since moving a file to a different medium/device requires making a copy...

Kantor48 writes "In today's world of unimproved gaming sequels and saturated franchises, Arthur Kabrick looks at the best and worst sequels in recent history, and compares the changes they've made to the formulae of their franchises. By doing this, he comes up with a list of lessons that any game developer creating a sequel should follow, if at all possible, to ensure that the new game is a step up, rather than a step sideways or, as in some cases, a step down. The criteria include ensuring the game does not spend too much time in development, updating technology, and trying not to change the development team, as well as being wary of changing the basic formula so much that fans of the franchise are alienated."

Notwithstanding your comment about PPE and the Civil Service (which I agree with)...

"Ironically, one of those, Margaret Thatcher, is not a graduate of the University of Oxford."

My understanding is that the Baroness Thatcher (back then just plain Miss Margaret Roberts) achieved second class honours in the Final Honour School of Natural Sciences in 1946, and supplicated for the MA in 1950.

Is your friend an undergraduate or graduate student? I'd lay a small wager that it is the former in your case.

The undergraduate degree I read over a decade ago (BA in Computation - anywhere else this would be a BSc in Computer Science) was indeed a very mediocre course (and there were only two lecturers that were any good, though most of my tutors - those who conducted tutorials consisting of two students at a time - were very good); but to be perfectly honest most undergraduate programmes in CS in existence are rather mediocre (I can't speak for other disciplines).

The key thing is the quality of research undertaken in the University - this is certainly world-class in most disciplines (which impacts those reading higher degrees by research). This probably won't impact you much if you were reading an undergraduate degree, though.

I can't agree that the "majority of students who go there are considered 'mediocre'," though. The vast majority of people I knew (which is significantly more than your one friend) were intelligent and articulate. This is what tends to happen when you have a selection system which requires applicants to hold extremely high academic grades (three A grades at UK A-level, or if you are from the US a score of 2,100/2,400 in the SAT reasoning test or an ACT score of 32/36), and then go through an interview-based selection.

In the context of the University of Oxford: Philosophy, Politics and Economics (originally known as "Modern Greats"), an undergraduate degree aimed towards those wishing to enter the civil service or politics.

Whilst I like to tinker, I don't like that everyone I know manages to screw up even the most user friendly system and then call me up day and night with stupid questions.

And whilst I have, actually, changed a set of pistons and big end shells (first car was an MG BGT) I couldn't ever imagine doing it on my Passatt. When I feel like tinkering with engines, I tinker with my 60s lawnmower. Its engine is tinker-friendly. It had to be, as it was (and is) always breaking down. Modern engines remove the ability to tinker but also the need> to tinker. The people who miss attending to 50+ grease points of a weekend still can - they just lovingly maintain old cars.

If you miss an old interface, fire up an emulator. If you want to hack an OS install Linux (in a VM parhaps?).

I think the opportunities for writing up a clever and powerful little app in your spare time is greater today than it ever was, and there are so many different ways to do it.

The macbook and iMac will be the next machines to move to a proprietary ARM chipset away from the relatively open X86 platform.

...what on earth has the processor got to do with whether a system is open or not? ARM is supported by Linux and is used in the majority of smartphones and mobile devices - including "open" ones like Android phones and competing "pads". Don't be fooled by the "A4 Custom Chip" thing: since ARM doesn't sell chips but licenses system-on-a-chip component designs on a mix'n'match basis, all ARM implementations are "custom chips". Unless, of course, you have an inside route to Apple and know something we don't about the A4.

Apple cannot stand the fact that the cheapest computer that runs OSX is the Dell Mini 9.

Apple doesn't give a flying fuck about the odd hacker who installs OS X on their Dell Mini, as long as they don't try selling them commercially (sorry, I take it we're just trading bald assertions here, since you're not citing any evidence either).

In other news, ARM do ultra-low power mobile/embedded chips - they haven't designed high performance desktop/high-end laptop chips since some time in the 90s. ARM simply isn't an option for the top end iMacs, MacBook Pros and Mac Pros. The whole reason Apple shifted to x86 (at great expense) in the first place was that IBM/Freescale weren't producing competetive processors fast enough.

Then there's other factors such as continuing support by developes such as Microsoft and Adobe on which the Mac market relies, and the big selling point that Intel Macs can run Windows via dual-boot or virtualization if needed.

Of course, it is possible that Apple could decide to ditch the "proper" PC market and concentrate on "appliances" - but that would mean handing a large section of its customer base over to Microsoft.

You call them appliances all you want but really they are not appliances (akin to a coffee maker, microwave etc) as they are far more complex.

Apple sells shedloads of kit to consumers because Apple understands that consumers want their music players, phones and web browsers to be as easy to use as coffee makers.

I don't think it's so much how observant the parents are as it is how competent the parents are at reading, spelling & math themselves. I've worked with a lot of people who are parents and seemingly well-educated, but lack grammar & spelling skills.

So what this demonstrates is that universities are not adapting as fast as the English language is. It makes sense in the information age that our language would be evolving at unprecedented rates. We could be like the L'academie Francaise and dictate that because it wasn't invented in an ivory tower it's not the true language; but English has historically been a living language - that is it's greatest strength. (We all know what 'cuz' means; don't TAs and Professors?)

There are uses for more formal linguistics, in the same way Latin was used well past the end of the Roman empire, to sound regal or intellectual - but it's really all for show.

Not to mention that, if you actually look at the physics, it is not possible to supply all our current energy needs entirely through solar and wind (renewable) power. So we will always have to have another source to supplement it like nuclear or cleaned up fossil fuels.

I almost completely disagree with you. Pay $100 for the iPhone developer program and you can do whatever you want to your own iPhone, iPod Touch, or iPad.

The only thing Apple is controlling is what you can do to other people's devices. Frankly, from my point of view having to try and defend an enterprise and friends' and families' computer from malicious software, I'm very happy about this. With the developer program you can share your work with up to 100 other people anyway, so I really don't think Mr. Pilgrim has made his point.

They do not have to continually opt-out. The opt-out is one time, it is online and it takes less than 5 minutes to fill out. Google couldn't make this process easier.

The problem is, will this sort of 'agreement without authority' extend to other parties? That is what I mean by continual opt-out. Continually having to reaffirm to someone else that you do not want them to distribute your work on your behalf - just remaining silent should be enough.

I know what you are thinking "They shouldn't have to opt-out at all".

If the book is older and the copyright owner is unknown then there is a chance that person is dead. What now? Perhaps the heirs will claim the work, or there may not be any heirs. If not, the book is lost. The only way to find a copy of it will be to travel to a library that has a physical copy. Once that physical copy deteriorates, gets destroyed, or stolen, then it is gone forever. To me, it seems like a terrible trade-off to protect the copyrights of people who are too lazy to spend 5 minutes to protect their own works.

Well, firstly Google is digitising these works, so they have to have a physical copy to begin with - so the book is not 'lost', you just have to wait out the copyright expiration before you can distribute new copies of it.

There is nothing stopping Google from storing the physical copy until then, or even digitising the work *now* and storing both for a future date. But no, what they want to do is circumvent copyright and release the works *now*, for profit.